Half Yearly Tax Digest 2025: Supreme Court and High Court Cases [Part XII]

This Half Yearly Digest analytically summarises all the Supreme Court and High Court Tax Decisions in the First Half of 2025, as reported at Taxscan.in.

Validity of CBIC notification u/s 168A of GST Act under Challenge: Delhi HC directs Authority to Pass order subject to Supreme Court’s Decision

ASHISH SINGHAL PROPRIETOR APN TRADING CO vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 644

The Delhi High Court, in the petition challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act directed the adjudication authority to pass order subject to the decision of the Supreme Court.

However, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta explicitly stated that any order passed by the adjudicating authority would remain “subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.”

Validity of CBIC Notifications u/s 168A GST Act: Supreme Court to Take Up Matter

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025 vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 162

The Supreme Court has admitted the petition challenging the validity of notifications issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) under Section 128A of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act. The matter will be taken up soon by the apex court.

 Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here 

Aggrieved by this decision of the high court, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Supreme Court, where it was filed on 1st February 2025. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan are expected to consider the matter on 14th May 2025.

ED‘s Action under PMLA cannot be reviewed by NCLT/NCLAT: Supreme Court

KALYANI TRANSCO & M/S.BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD.& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 163

In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot review the actions taken by statutory authorities under other laws.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

The NCLAT’s observations and findings regarding the ED’s provisional attachment order were deemed “coram non judice” by the court, meaning they were made without legal authority or jurisdiction.

NCLAT cannot condone Appeal Filing Delay beyond 45 Days: Supreme Court in Tata Steel

TATA STEEL LTD. VS RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. CITATION: TAXSCAN (SC) 164

On May 7, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), has no jurisdiction to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30 days plus a 15-day condonable period) prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.

The Court reiterated its stance from Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021), emphasizing that NCLAT has no authority to condone delays beyond 15 days after the initial 30-day period. The IBC’s appellate framework is deliberately stringent to ensure swift and certain resolution of insolvency cases.

GURUDAS MALLIK THAKUR vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS ANDSERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 645

The Delhi High Court, in a matter where a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand was raised against Former Directors, ordered the GST department to set up the mechanism to file an appeal. It was ruled that the non-taxable persons can appeal and directed that the appeal shall not be dismissed on ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

It was directed to the Department to communicate to the Petitioners within two weeks the mechanism in which they can avail of their appellate remedies. Upon receiving the intimation, the Petitioners shall file the appeal within 30 days.

ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 646

The Delhi High Court has quashed two orders and five show cause notices (SCNs) citing gross and unexplained delays in the adjudication process, which spanned between six to eleven years.

In addition, it was noted that for the first four impugned SCNs, a personal hearing was conducted as early as 27 December 2016, and the petitioner submitted a clarificatory written response on 30 December 2016. Despite these steps, no final order was passed, and the adjudication process remained stalled for another 7.5 years without any justified reason, a delay the Court found wholly unjustifiable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Appeal, Order-in-Original, and the five SCNs.

Relief for Punjab and Sind Bank: Delhi HC Rules Income from Bank-Held Securities as Business Profits, Not Investment Returns

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 647

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that income from securities held by banks such securities are to be treated as stock-in-trade. So, the income derived from them should be assessed under the head “Profits and Gains of Business,” not as investment returns.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The court dismissed the appeal. The court directed that the parties would be bound by the outcome of any pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the earlier decisions, but reaffirmed its current position in favour of the assessee.

₹550 Crore GST Fake Invoice Scam: Delhi HC refuses to Entertain Petition, directs to Seek Appellate Remedy

M/S MONTAGE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL GOODSAND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 648

In a recent ruling involving a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) fraud billing a bogus bill of Rs. 550 cores, the Delhi High Court declined to hear the petition. It ordered the petitioner to move the appellate forum for relief as the present case does not suit the writ jurisdiction.

Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here

The Court stated that the court’s observations would not prejudice the appellate proceedings, and disposed of the petition and pending applications accordingly.

GST DRC-06 Forms Show Adequate Opportunity Given to Taxpayer: Delhi HC Upholds ₹35 Lakh GST Demand

VIJAY AND COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS SEEMA TAYALvs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 649

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld a Rs. 35 lakh GST demand raised against Vijay and Company, rejecting the petitioner’s plea to quash the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act. The court relied on the DRC-06 forms as conclusive evidence that the taxpayer had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the show cause notice but failed to do so.

The writ petition was dismissed, but the court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within thirty days. The court directed that the appeal, if filed along with the requisite pre-deposit, should be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation.

10-Year Extended Reassessment Invalid as Escaped Income Not Represented as Asset u/s 153A(1) Proviso: Delhi HC

SMART CHIP PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 650

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 10-year reassessment window allowed under the proviso to Section 153A(1) was inapplicable as the escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset, as required by law.

The writ petition was allowed, and the court clarified that the reassessment notice lacked legal validity due to non-fulfilment of statutory conditions for extended limitation.

Income Tax Proceedings against Dissolved HUF Invalid: Calcutta HC Quashes ₹7.29 Crore Penalty

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs CHANDRAVADANDESAI (HUF) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 651

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court quashed a penalty order of Rs. 7.29 crore, ruling that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were legally unsustainable, as they were conducted against an entity that no longer existed following a complete partition of the HUF.

The court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and held that the entire penalty proceeding was void in law. The accompanying stay application was also dismissed.

Inspection Conducted Without Independent Witnesses and Seizure Order Tampered: Patna HC Quashes ₹88.64 Lakh GST Demand

M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors vs The State ofBihar through The Principal Secretary CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 652

In a recent decision, the Patna High Court quashed a Rs. 88.64 lakh GST demand after finding that the inspection was carried out without the presence of independent witnesses and that the seizure order had been tampered with after the proceedings had begun.

Are You GST Compliant? Get the Clarity You Need on RCM - Click here 

The court ruled that the procedural lapses rendered the inspection illegal and the demand arising from it unsustainable. The court also issued a warning to the concerned officer, cautioning her against any future interference with official or court documents and stating that further violations would attract disciplinary action. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned.

Circulars Issued by GST Council Binding on Department: Allahabad HC quashes Demand Order ignoring Council’s Circular

M/S Shri Krishna Pharmaceutical And Surgicals Agencies vsPrincipal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise Lko.And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 653

The Allahabad High Court, while ruling that the circulars issued by the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) council are binding on the department, it quashed the GST demand orders issued under Section 74 of GST Act and IGST without considering the circulars.

To expedite proceedings, the Court instructed the petitioners to appear before the adjudicating authority on 11.03.2025 at 12:00 noon, along with their submissions. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. With these directions, the High Court disposed of both writ petitions.

GST Dept raised Demand Despite Intimation of Assessee’s Death: Madras HC Quashes Orders, Permits Action against Heirs

S.Rekha vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 654

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has quashed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) orders which raised demand despite intimation of assessee’s death. The department chose to issue notices continuously and court permitted action against the heirs.

GST on Real Estate & Works Contracts – Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector! Click here 

Consequently, the High Court declared the impugned order of 26.02.2025 set aside, but ordered liberty to the department to file new proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased, who were ordered to submit their replies and take part in the process. With these instructions, the writ petition was granted without cost, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dispensed with.

GST ITC reversed on Grounds of Late Claim beyond Prescribed Time u/s 16(4): Madras HC quashes Order Considering S. 16(5)

M/s.Thirupathi Powerloom Weavers Coop and Society Limitedvs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 655

The Madras High Court has quashed orders passed by the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Department that had reversed the input tax credit (ITC) claims of a registered taxpayer on grounds of late availment beyond the prescribed time under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Additionally, the court clarified that any tax amounts already recovered under the set-aside order must be refunded or credited back to the petitioner’s ledger for future tax adjustment. However, the court granted liberty to the department to proceed in accordance with law if there were independent grounds such as discrepancies, wrongful ITC availment, excess claims, or fake invoices unrelated to the limitation issue. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Dev Marketing vs The Assessment Unit[Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax] CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 656

The Bombay High Court has set aside an assessment order, after the Income Tax Department admitted it had committed a bonafide error by failing to grant the taxpayer a hearing through video conference, as requested. It remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

Additionally, the court noted a typographical correction in the affidavit regarding the omission of the word “not” in one paragraph, reading the correction into the record due to its obvious nature.

Rebate to be Granted when no Cenvat Credit Availed on Inputs Used in Exported Goods: Bombay High Court

Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs The Union of India &Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 657

The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a rebate claim, ruling that no Cenvat credit was availed on the inputs used in the exported goods, thus making the exporter eligible for the rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The Court noted that the logic in the impugned Order would lead to an unreasonable outcome. It held that merely availing Cenvat credit for unrelated domestic transactions cannot disqualify an exporter from claiming a rebate on exports where credit on relevant inputs was reversed. Such an interpretation was contrary to the export policy and precedent set by the Supreme Court in Spentex Industries Ltd.

GST SCN issued During Same Period of ill Condition of Directors who Died Later: Delhi HC grants Marketing Co. Fresh Opportunity to Defend Case

VIBHOR MARKETING PVT LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 658

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted an opportunity to defend the case of a marketing company whose Show Cause notice ( SCN ) under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) issued during the same period of ill condition of directors who passed away later.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

The court set aside the impugned order, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner a proper hearing.

Settlement of dispute under DTVSV Scheme is Impossible in Stage of Issuance of Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act: Patna HC

DOMINO PRINTING SCIENCES PLC vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 659

The Patna High Court has held that settlement of disputes under DTVSV Scheme is Impossible in stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961.

The court directed the Designated Authority to process the petitioner’s declaration and determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of the DTVSV Scheme by construing the date of declaration filed by the petitioner as 23.12.2024 and issue an appropriate certificate in the prescribed form within a period of fifteen days from the date.

Customs Act Grants Unfettered Investigative Powers when there is an Infraction: Patna HC

Bishal Roadways vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 660

The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides ‘unfettered power’ to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.

Planning smarter for FY 2025–26? Don’t miss this trusted guide used by thousands of tax professionals & CA students! Click here 

When the matter was brought forward, the Court ordered the respondent Custom authorities to take it into consideration in line with the law and issue the necessary orders as soon as possible. Within six months of today, it is anticipated that the investigation and any adjudication procedures that result from it will be finished.

Accountant’s Failure to Inform GST Proceedings and Proprietor’s Sickness: Madras HC Condones 192 Days’ Delay

M/S.ANNAI VELANGANNI INDUSTRIES VS THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 661

The Madras High Court condoned a delay of 192 days in filing an appeal under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act considering the combined grounds of the part-time accountant’s failure to inform the proceedings and the ill health of the proprietor.

After hearing both parties and perusing the records, the bench of Vivek Kumar Singh held that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. The Court observed that the combination of the accountant’s failure to communicate important updates and the proprietor’s health constituted valid grounds for condonation.

GST Demand on ITR-26AS, GSTR-2A Mismatches & ITC Reversal on Credit Notes: Madras HC directs to approach Appellate Forum

TVL T.SELVAM CIVIL CONTRACTOR VS THE STATE TAX OFFICER-4 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 662

Regarding the GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand raised due to mismatches in ITR Form 26AS, discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in GST Returns 2A (GSTR-2A), and ITC reversals stemming from credit notes received, the Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to approach the designated appellate forum, citing that an effective statutory remedy is available there.

The bench of Vivek Kumar Singh of the Madras High Court declined to interfere with the assessment order at the writ stage. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds presented in the writ petition before the appellate forum.

No Tangible Evidence of GE Renewables’ Permanent Establishment in India: Delhi HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment

GE RENEWABLES GRID LLC vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 663

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court quashed the reopening of income tax assessments initiated against GE Renewables Grid LLC (formerly known as Alstom Grid Inc/LLC), holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide any tangible evidence of the company having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

 Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector! Click here 

The court held that the reassessment proceedings lacked the foundational requirement of demonstrable material and could not be sustained in law. The court explained that reassessment under Section 147 demands a reasonable belief based on specific information, which was entirely missing in this case.

Limitation Period Begins from Date of Document Transfer from AO of Searched Person to AO of Other Person u/s 153C: Delhi HC

CAROL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 Taxscan (HC) 664

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for completing assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act begins from the date when documents are transferred from the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee.

The court explained that, as per the proviso to Section 153C, the relevant date for computing limitation is the date when the AO of the “other person” receives the documents from the AO of the searched person.

Clean Slate Doctrine Under IBC Prevents Income Tax Dept from Reopening Assessments Excluded from Approved RP: Delhi HC

SURYA MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & ORS:Citation: 2025 Taxscan (HC) 665

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot raise claims that were not part of an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), invoking the Clean Slate Doctrine.

The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia explained that all prior claims not incorporated in the plan are deemed extinguished once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC. The court observed that permitting such reassessments would undermine the finality and sanctity of the insolvency resolution process and contradict the Clean Slate Doctrine enshrined in the IBC.

Patna HC Upholds Order passed u/r 86 -A (1) of CGST Rules Citing Valid reason for Blocking ITC

M/s Graphic Trades Private Limited vs The State of Biharthrough the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 666

The Patna High Court upheld the order passed under rule 86-A (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules (CGST) as there was valid reason for blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC).

A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed that no illegality or infirmity may be found with the impugned order (Annexure ‘P/2’) which is in the nature of an interim measure taken by respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 4 has acted on the basis of Annexure “P/2”, however, the order, if any of respondent no. 4 is not under challenge specifically. The petitioner has a remedy available against the blocking of ITC. If so advised, the petitioner may avail its remedy in terms of paragraph 3.4 of the guidelines. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner/its authorized representative.

AO has No Jurisdiction to Ignore CIT(A)’s Order even by Relying on Subsequent Supreme Court Decision: Delhi HC

GOODRICH CARBOHYDRATES LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 667

IIn a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) has no jurisdiction to ignore the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] even by relying on the subsequent supreme court decision.

The court clarified that its ruling did not address the merit of the addition or disallowance in relation to the delayed deposit of the EPF/PF contributions. The petition was disposed of accordingly, reaffirming the limits of the AO’s authority in such cases.

Lack of Proof and E-Way Bills Leads to Denial of ITC Claim: Madras HC Dismisses Petition

M/s.Devi Traders vs The State Tax Officer (Inspection) 5 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 668

The High Court of Madras,upheld the denial of input tax credit (ITC) for the petitioner due to the lack of proof of actual supply and absence of e-way bills.

The Court held that the Department followed proper procedure and that the burden was on the petitioners to prove receipt of goods. As they failed to do so, the ITC was rightly denied. It also ruled that cross-examination of Charles and Shanthi was not necessary, as their statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioners.

Jharkhand HC Quashes ITAT Ruling Which Deletes Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s New Punjab MotorTransport CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 669

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, was invalid since it was based only on a precedent that the Supreme Court had overturned.

It was viewed that applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors, will have retrospective application. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi and remitted the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi for fresh adjudication of the issue, taking into consideration the observation made by the High Court.

Tax Exemption is Allowable to Officer belong to Scheduled Tribe: Gauhati HC Upholds Refund of Income Tax Deducted u/s 10(26) from Salary

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS vs CHYAWAN PRAKASH MEENA B CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 670

The Gauhati High Court allowed a request that the central government reimburse the income tax withheld from the wages of a BSF Assistant Commandant who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The bench held that Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.

Your ultimate guide for mastering TDS provisions - Click here 

The court dismissed the department’s appeal and held that Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.

GST Demand of Rs.1.5 crores: Delhi HC directs to Consider Requests to Adjourn hearing Considering medical condition

M/S JAI OPTICAL vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 671

The Delhi High Court held that the act of the proper officer in confirming demand of Rs. 1.5 crores GST on the ground of absence of the assessee in the hearing is not valid, and the bench directed the department to empathetically consider assessee’s request for adjournment of a personal hearing on medical grounds.

Considering the circumstances , the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that “ The medical ground which was stated on 23nd December, 2024 ought to have been considered empathetically as the same was accompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.

Gold Kada Worn by Sikh Man Is Personal Effect: Delhi HC Orders Customs to Release Detained Kada

DALJEET SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 672

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed Customs authorities to release a gold kada (bracelet) belonging to a Sikh man, ruling that it qualifies as his “personal effect”

The bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta concluded that detaining petitioner’s gold kada was unlawful. It ordered Customs to release the kada within four weeks, subject to payment of applicable warehouse charges. With this, the petition and all pending applications were disposed of.

ECL Cannot be blocked for More than One Year u/r 86A CGST Rules: Delhi HC

SHRI SAI RAM ENTERPRIESES vs PR. ADG, DGGI, GURUGRAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 673

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has ruled that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year under rule 86A Central Goods ande Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.

The court, however, proceeded to grant liberty to the Revenue to take independent action against the Petitioner, if the allegation of running a bogus firm stood substantiated.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Notice u/s 148A as Time-Barred Under TOLA

LALIT GULATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 674

The Patna High Court has held that settlement of dispute under DTVSV Scheme is Impossible in the stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961.

The UAE Tax Law Is Evolving — Stay Ahead Before Clients Find Someone Who Already Is - Click here 

The court noted that the issue was already settled in favour of the petitioner in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd.Accordingly, the bench quashed the notice dated 23.07.2022 and set aside all related proceedings. The petition was allowed.

Limitation Period Expired: Delhi HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings

RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 675

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14, citing the failure to meet legal conditions and the expiration of the time limitation.

The bench set aside the reassessment proceedings, ruling that no notice under Section 148 could be issued for AY 2013-14.Therefore, the petition was allowed.

GSTAT Technical Member Qualification Row: Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Ex-IAS Officer’s Plea against Relaxation of Eligibility Criteria

Amit Kashyap vs Principal Secretary CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 676

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), while upholding the validity of two state notifications that relaxed the eligibility criteria for appointment as Technical Member (State) of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

The Court noted that the proviso empowers the State Government, “on the recommendations of the Council,” to relax the twenty-five-year Group A service requirement, but solely “in respect of officers of such State where no person has completed twenty-five years of service in Group A”

No Central Proceedings Initiated When State Issued Assessment Order: Patna HC Finds No Procedural Error

CTS Industries Limited vs Directorate General of GSTIntelligence CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 677

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld a GST assessment order issued by the State Tax Authority, ruling that no procedural or jurisdictional error occurred as no proceedings had been initiated by the Central agency at the time the State order was passed.

The court ruled that the assessment order passed by the State authority was valid, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal and directed that any delay in doing so be considered leniently by the appellate authority, taking into account the petitioner’s bona fide belief in pursuing a writ remedy.

Penalty under Income Tax not Imposable for Cash Repayment of Loan on Lender’s Instruction to Curb Interest Escalation: Chhattisgarh HC

Sandeep Kaur Gill vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 678

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the penalty under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be imposed for cash repayment of a loan on the lender’s instruction to curb interest escalation.

Standardize Accounting Policies – Specimen Drafts at Your Fingertips! Perfect for internal reference and client consistency -Click here 

The court held that since the appellant has shown the reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, the appellant is not liable to pay penalty under Section 271E of the Income Act for non-compliance with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act.

Relief to Airtel, Charges Paid for Bandwidth to Overseas Telecom Operators Do Not Amount to Royalty under Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs BHARTI AIRTEL LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 679

In the case of Bharati Airtel, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department and held that charges paid for bandwidth to overseas telecom operators do not amount to royalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

While dismissing the revenue’s appeal, the High Court observed that undisputedly, the questions raised are covered by the earlier decisions of the court in New Skies Satellite BV [68 taxmann.com8] [2016] and CIT v. Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd. : [2024]. Thus, the charges paid for bandwidth to overseas telecom service providers cannot be construed as royalties in the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.

Escaped Income Below ₹50 Lakh: Delhi HC quashes Reassessment as Beyond 3-Year Time Limit

ANKIT KHANDELWAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 680

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed an income tax reassessment, holding that reassessment proceedings could not be sustained beyond the three-year limitation period where the amount allegedly escaping assessment did not exceed Rs. 50 lakh.

Rejecting the Revenue’s argument that the value of alleged fictitious gains should govern limitation, the court clarified that the AO must assess the actual escaped income, not just rely on the information received.

Civil Suit for Declaration as Null and Void barred u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act when Bank Account declared as NPA: Allahabad HC

Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd vs Punjab National Bank CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 681

Reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that a civil suit seeking to declare proceedings under the SARFAESI Act as “null and void” is expressly barred by Section 34 of the Act once a borrower’s account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

It was held that, “the order passed by the Commercial Court rejecting the injunction application as well as plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. does not suffer from any error of fact and/or law.”

No Tax Evasion on Transfer of Old Machine from Head Office to Branch for Own Use: Allahabad HC

M/S D And D Construction And Developers Company vsAdditional Commissioner Grade 2 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 682

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the movement of an old machine from the head office of a company to its branch for internal use does not constitute tax evasion under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework. It was noted that the delivery challan clearly indicated that the goods were being transferred for the company’s own use, and not for sale or supply to any third party.

The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned penalty order and allowed the writ petition filed by M/s D and D Construction and Developers Company.

Income Tax Notices Must Include Reasons, Even if Not Mandatory by Law: Patna HC Quashes Preliminary Orders

Kishore Kumar Singh vs The Deputy / Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 683

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court quashed preliminary orders and held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, even under the unamended provisions, must be supported by proper reasoning, regardless of whether the law mandates it.

The court granted liberty to the Income Tax Department to issue fresh notices within eight weeks, provided they are supported by detailed reasoning. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

Fly Ash Sales Funds Restricted by Environmental Law: Delhi HC Rules Proceeds not Taxable as Profit

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAMLTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 684

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that proceeds from the sale of fly ash by NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (NVVNL), a wholly owned subsidiary of NTPC, were not taxable as income under the Income Tax Act. The court held that the funds were subject to statutory restrictions imposed by environmental regulations so they could not be treated as profit earned by the assessee.

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.

Challenge against order rejecting GST refund: Delhi HC Disposes of Petition on Availability of Statutory Remedy

MAGICON IMPEX PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODSAND SERVICE TAX & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 685

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain the petition as the impugned GST order rejecting the refund claim was passed after considering the reply and the written submissions of the Petitioner. A perusal of the adjudication order would show that there is a detailed adjudication of various factual issues.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that “If the appeal is filed within the next 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.”

DIN Requirement Breached Initially but Rectified Within 15 Days: Patna HC Validates Income Tax Notices

Shree Shakambhari Udyog Partnership Firm vs Commissionerof Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 686

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court upheld the validity of income tax reassessment notices, ruling that the initial procedural lapse concerning the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) was subsequently rectified within the permitted timeframe.

The bench ruled that no jurisdictional error was apparent in the assessment or penalty orders, and that the petitioner could pursue appeals before the competent authority.

‘No Independent Right to Cross-Objections Under Section 260A’: Delhi HC

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 687

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the limited scope of Section 260A(6) and rejected cross-objections in the Income Tax Appeal.

The bench held that the provisions of Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not give an independent right to the respondent to raise a challenge divorced or isolated from the question on which the appeal comes to be admitted.

GST S. 75(5) Provides for Maximum Three Adjournments, Not Necessarily Three Hearings: Delhi HC in Fraudulent ITC Case

SS ENTERPRISES vs OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 688

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that under the Section 75(5) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017 merely sets a ceiling of three adjournments in assessment proceedings, but does not imply that three personal hearings must be mandatorily granted. The court was entertaining a case related to fraudulent Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The Court further clarified that if the appeal is filed within 30 days of receiving the RUDs, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and should be adjudicated on merits.

Bombay HC Rules Basis for Infrastructure Fee Deduction Must Be Actual Receipts, Not Gross Advertising Bills

M/s. Star Time Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs TheCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 689

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ruled that infrastructure fee deductions under the Income Tax Act must be calculated based on actual advertising receipts and not on gross advertising bills.

Finding no perversity in the tax authorities’ decisions, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

S.33A of Central Excise Mandates Three Personal Hearings with Adequate Gaps: Patna HC Remands Matter

M/s Surya CEF JV vs The Chief Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 690

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court set aside a service tax demand order for failing to comply with the requirement of granting three personal hearings under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, CGST and CX (Audit), Patna. The court directed that a fresh date of hearing be fixed with at least four weeks’ notice, and that the petitioner be allowed to submit relevant documents and make written submissions.

Travel Agency Claims Record Loss in Fire: Patna HC Confirms ₹25 Lakh Service Tax Demand for Non-Cooperation

Siddartha Travels vs Principal Commissioner of CGST andCentral Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 691

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld a Rs. 25 lakh service tax demand against Siddartha Travels, rejecting the travel agency’s claim that its business records were destroyed in a fire. The court found that the demand was justified due to the agency’s non-filing of statutory returns and non-cooperation during the investigation process.

The court declined to interfere with the tax demand and adjudication order, holding that no jurisdictional error had occurred and clarified that it had not ruled on the merits of the tax computation itself, as those issues involve factual determinations more appropriately handled in an appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates